FIRM MADANLAL ROSHANLAL MAHAJAN versus HUKUMCHAND MILLS LTD., INDORE

Citation: [1967] 1 S.C.R. 105 · Decided: 19-08-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
FIRM MADANLAL ROSHANLAL MAHAJAN 
v. 
HUKUMCHAND MILLS LTD., INDORE 
August 19, 1966 
B 
[K. N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.J 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Indian Arbitr"11on Act, 1940 (Ace 10 of 1940)-Arbitrator, puwera of 
-Lump sum award-A.mendmfnt of issue--lnterest pendente lite. 
The respondent filed a suit ·against the appellant claiming two SlllnS 
as losses in respect of two items and interest oo the same. 
The dis-
putes were referred to an arbitrator, before whom the respondent did 
not press for interest prior to the institution of the suit, but pressed 
its claim for th<> two sums and interests from the date of the institution 
of the suit till recovery. At the time of writing of the award, 
the 
arbitrator corrected ooe of the issues to show thst the claim was for 
the price of the items. The arbitrator passed a lump sum award in 
respect of both items, and awarded interest oo that sum from the elate 
of the award till the date of payment. The award was filed in Court, 
and the appellant's appli.Cation for setting aside tho award was dismi•sed 
by the District Judge. This was confirmed by the High Court. In appeal, 
this Court, 
· 
HELD: 
(i) The arbitrator could give a lump Sllf11 award. He was 
not bound to give a separate award for each claim; His award on both 
fact and law is final. 
There is no appeal from hi3 verdict. The court 
cannot review his award and correct any mistake in his adjudication; 
unless an objection to the legality of the award is apparent on the fa~•. 
of it. (107 GJ 
Cluzmpsey Bhara & Company v. Jivray Ba/lo Spinning and WellVin;>' 
Company Ltd., L.R. 50 I.A. 324, referred to. 
In the present case the arbitrator gave no reasons for. the award. 
There is no legal proposition which is the basis of the award, far leos a 
legal proposition which is erroneous. [108 BJ 
(ii) By amending an issue behind the back of the 
appellant, 
the 
arbitrator was not guilty of misconduct. 
By this amendment the appellant 
suffered no prejudice. (108 C-DJ 
(iii) ln an arbitration in a suit, the arbitrator has power to award, 
pendente Ute interest. 
Though, in terms, s. 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure do.. nol 
apply to arbitrations, it was an implied term of the reference in the 
suit that the arbitrator would decide the dispute according to law and 
would give such relief with regard to pendente lit, interest as the Court 
could give if it decided the dispute. This power of the arbitrator was 
not fettered either by the arbitration agreement· or by the Arbitration 
Act, 1940. In the present case, all the disputes in the suit were referred 
to the arbitrator and one of the disputes in the suit was whether the 
Tespondent was entitled to pendente lire interest. [I 09 DJ 
Case law referred to. 
Crvrr, APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 878 of 1964. 
M14Sup Cl/66 ~8 
105 
106 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1967) I S.C.R. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and dacree dated 
A 
April 30, 1960 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Civil 
First Appeal No. 41 of 1960. 
K. L. Gosai11, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for the appellant. 
S. T. Desai, S. N. Prasad, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and 
Ravinder Narain, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bachawat. J. The appellant and the respondent entered into 
three contracts whereby the appellant agreed to buy and the res-
pondent agreed to sell 352 bales of cloth. Originally, the contracts 
provided for delivery of the goods in May/June, 1948. The parties 
subsequently agreed that part of the goods would be delivered in 
June. 1948 and the balance goods would be delivered in July, 1948. 
The dispute between the parties concerns an item of 176 bales and 
another item of 46t bales. The respondent claimed from the 
appellant a sum of Rs. 1,72,856/- made up of (I) Rs. 84,006/2/-
for loss in respect of 176 bales resold by the respondent with the 
consent of the appellant and (2) Rs. 88,849/14/- for the balance of 
the price of 46t bales bargained and sold but not taken delivery 
of by the appellant. On February 6, 1950, the respondent institut-
ed against the appellant Civil Suit No. 10-A of 1950 in the Court 
of the District Judge, Indore claiming the aforesaid sum of 
Rs. 1,72.856/-, interest thereon from July), 1948 up to January 30. 
1950, godown rent, interest from the date of the institution of 
the suit and costs. On or about May 15, 1950, the disputes in 
the suit were referred to the sole arbitration of Sri S.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.